Thursday, April 16, 2009

Experiment 1 Feedback

The intention of publishing the feedback below is so that all students can benefit by understanding the strengths and weaknesses of a range of projects. Please take the time to review other students work with these comments in mind. If you have any questions or would like any further clarification don’t hesitate to ask me during the studio session.

AlezeKey strength of the scheme:Aleze, there are a few interesting ideas that you allude to in this scheme – folding space, use of recycled, discarded building elements. Your textures show a definite improvement in the exploration of your linework over the sections from the week before.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:The interpretation of these ideas is the major weakness. The upper studio is a room with folded ceiling – the opportunity to fold spaces into one another, fold the floor plane, and use the result to manipulate light is overlooked. Looking back to the artwork that inspired the lower studio suggests a series of objects that could have been used to bring light into that space….

AngelKey strength of the scheme:Angel, the form of your upper studio space is the most promising element in your scheme. The stairway to the lower studio also shows potential as a powerful experience.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:Allow your ideas to infuse all aspects of the space. The ‘organic’ material for the upper studio is only on the outside, but not experienced from within. The interaction between light, space and people in your lower space and how this talks about ‘reconciliation’ needs a more convincing resolution.

ArtKey strength of the scheme:Art, your sections and textures are inspired and demonstrate creativity. Linework is careful.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:Feels as if you ran out of time when revising the scheme for your final submission. There are promising ideas in roof form and ceiling plane in the scheme that appears under ‘further Sketchup development’ that seem to be lost in the final proposal. Spaces feel a lot more restrained, and lack the life of the initial schemes and sketch drawings.

AustinKey strength of the scheme:Austin, your stair is the only element that seems to have had any consideration and design invested in it.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:Your submission is incomplete. You have not posted any sections and a paltry few textures. This is not acceptable. Much more effort required from you.

BaharehKey strength of the scheme:Bahareh, your textures are the strongest part of your scheme – neatly executed and good variation.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:Still not clear how your proposal relates to the idea of ‘missed’ and ‘simulate’. Your spaces appear to be simply an arrangement of boxes and feel like they need more time to develop the character that has inspired them.

BrandanKey strength of the scheme:Brandan, most promising gesture in your scheme is the roof form and the double-height arrangement of the exhibition/upper studio space.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:However, still very unclear which is the upper studio and which is the exhibition space. All three spaces seem very limited in the way they could be used or occupied by the artists. Still a lot of work needed to resolve these spaces.

BrendanKey strength of the scheme:Brendan, your textures show the most invention and exploration of ideas by far in your scheme. There is an interesting proposition apparent in the cross section of the upper studio particularly, and, to a lesser extent, the exhibition space.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:Your spaces feel a bit ‘thin’, especially in the animations. I notice that your sketch sections are all single line weight – no modulation in the thickness or exploration in line qualities. This is reflected in your model in that while the building elements have thickness, there is very little exploration of weight and mass over different elements. Your chosen words (structured / confronting) suggest a lot of potential to explore these ideas. Make sure you squeeze as much out of your initial concepts as possible.

BrittaKey strength of the scheme:No strengths apparent.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:Majority of submission requirements unfulfilled. Did not submit.

CharlieKey strength of the scheme:Your upper space is very evocative of the word you have chosen. Both stairs are equally as evocative and thoughtfully detailed.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:Sections exercise feels a bit scrappy and rushed. Evident that you took more care over the texture exercises. Lower studio and exhibition space are weaker than the upper studio. Infusing them with the same sculptural qualities as the upper space and your stair elements would lift your scheme dramatically. Lighting channels for the lower studio need to be further developed.

EthanKey strength of the scheme:Ethan, strength lies in lots of little ideas throughout the spaces – bulbous walls, circuitous stairs.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:Your proposal feels like a box of unrelated tricks – they bear no relation to one another. The ideas of scale and exploration are only apparent in these unrelated objects that you decorate your boxes with, rather than creating a series of spaces that engender exploration and engage with issues of scale.

FrancesKey strength of the scheme:Frances, the strongest element in your scheme is the progression of stairs down through the lower studio.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:Some random elements such as the double spiral stair - intriguing in its own right, but how does it relate to the space it serves? Is the upper studio a vessel for art, for light, for people? What ideas does this suggest about containment? How does your dome relate to the notion of a vessel? Your gestures need to suggest and develop the conceptual driver of your proposition.

HaoKey strength of the scheme:Strengths lie in individual ideas such as the skylight element, the displacement of each of the studio spaces and the exhibition space.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:These ideas are not linked, but read as independent gestures that do not relate to one another. The stair elements and geometry of the columns seem a bit random, feeling like they need a rationale to tie them into the scheme.

Jin ChenKey strength of the scheme:Jin Chen, this scheme is very rich with ideas that have been powerfully executed. The application of textures to the forms you adopt in your spaces works well. The stairs are considered and carefully detailed. These are exuberant spaces.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:You need to learn the art of restraint. Your proposal walks a fine line between sculpture and decoration. Start off with big gestures, then learn how to pare these down to a clear expression of your concept. Ask whether an element is absolutely essential to the scheme and if not, edit it.

JohnKey strength of the scheme:John, great work. The strengths lie in the interpretation of the ideas into how the spaces are experienced and used, application of textures and modulation of light, etc. There is also a development of your drawing skills evident between the sections exercise and the textures.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:The lower studio space seems the least developed – feels like the ideas in this space still have some way to go to reach their full potential, eg. the light prisms, the break-up of the space into discrete uses. The stair to Gascoigne’s studio remains the least convincing element.

KateKey strength of the scheme:Kate, a good start to the year. Your upper studio and exhibition space are a convincing synthesis of your initial ideas and sketch section. Manipulation of floor and ceiling plane particularly interesting.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:The lower studio somehow still not as convincing. Your choice of octagonal form in the exploration of observation and voyeurism is understandable, but it feels quite disconnected from the other 2 spaces due to its singular gesture. I feel you could have explored these ideas using forms and deployment of spaces that would more closely relate to your upper spaces. Also, some resolution of structure required – glass wouldn’t support roof planes as you have proposed.

KentKey strength of the scheme:Kent, main strength is the idea of creating elements out of scrap pieces of redundant objects.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:Feels as if the idea of ‘oblivion’ has been a little difficult for you to explore. The dome structures seem singular in gesture and have difficulty relating to the rest of the scheme. The form of the lower studio space is the weaker of the two – almost as if the word ‘scrap’ has translated into a bit of an unloved space.

LinhKey strength of the scheme:Linh, your section sketches and textures show a fertile imagination. There are interesting and compelling elements in your design – the stairs, the roof forms, deployment of textures.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:The weakness is in the synthesis of these elements into a coherent whole. Consider how each of these elements relate to one another and contribute to the overall concept. Parts of your scheme are still more of a decorated box than an architectural space that deals with form, light, mass.

ReziKey strength of the scheme:Rezi, key strengths are your extent of enquiry, the thought that you have put into use of materials and, to a lesser extent, the displacement of work areas.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:Your translation of the ideas into architecture is more literal than interpretive – sharp roof form over an ordinary arrangement of rooms for example. Take care that your work is about interpretation of an idea through manipulation of space, light, form, rather than an arrangement of objects representing your ideas within a space.

SimonKey strength of the scheme:Simon, your upper studio space is the strongest part of your proposition – a promising progression of spaces that would be interesting to see further developed.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:Your lower studio space however needs much more work. I feel the generating word you picked up on (corrode) may have proved a little too difficult for you interpret architecturally. The lower stairs feel a little ordinary. And is that a giant pencil running between the floors?

TerryKey strength of the scheme:Terry, your upper studio is the stronger of the 2 spaces. Stair element and roof forms share a common language.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:The whole scheme is still tending towards a random arrangement of patterns. When you introduce shapes – diagonals, circles – make sure they are serving a purpose or are backed up by a rigorous rationale, rather than just a play of lines and shapes.

ThomasKey strength of the scheme:Tom, the strength of the forms and the possibilities for manipulation of light, experience of progression through the spaces are all solid efforts.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:You have provided the required number of images (though not animations). However, it is very difficult to see how you have resolved things in your scheme because there is not enough information in the material you posted on your blog. The ideas might be powerful, but if the client can’t see them clearly because of your presentation, you won’t be able to convince them of that power.

TristanKey strength of the scheme:Tristan, key strengths here are the element of the wall and the efforts to get light into the building.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:What you have created is a building – a series of stacked containers that relate to one another only in their proximity. There is limited of form, mass, manipulation of space, light, consideration of progression through the 3 spaces. The entry feels like it belongs in a non-descript office building, not artists’ studio. In addition to the mere provision of shelter, architecture should be an emotional act.